Search Images Maps Play YouTube News Gmail Drive More »
Sign in
Screen reader users: click this link for accessible mode. Accessible mode has the same essential features but works better with your reader.

Patents

  1. Advanced Patent Search
Publication numberUS4782444 A
Publication typeGrant
Application numberUS 06/809,989
Publication dateNov 1, 1988
Filing dateDec 17, 1985
Priority dateDec 17, 1985
Fee statusPaid
Also published asCA1264859A1, CN1003679B, CN86107764A, EP0229245A2, EP0229245A3
Publication number06809989, 809989, US 4782444 A, US 4782444A, US-A-4782444, US4782444 A, US4782444A
InventorsAshfaq A. Munshi, Karl M. Schimpf
Original AssigneeInternational Business Machine Corporation
Export CitationBiBTeX, EndNote, RefMan
External Links: USPTO, USPTO Assignment, Espacenet
Compilation using two-colored pebbling register allocation method such that spill code amount is invariant with basic block's textual ordering
US 4782444 A
Abstract
A method for allocating and optimizing register assignments during compiling of source into executable code in either a scalar or vector processor uses a pebble game heuristic played on each basic block dependency graph for local optimization. Like variable analysis and loop unrolling are used for global optimization.
Images(2)
Previous page
Next page
Claims(5)
We claim:
1. A method for allocating and optimizing register assignments during the compiling of source into executable code in either a scalar or a vector processor,
the source code including regions of code without branches termed "basic blocks", each basic block having statements defining computations,
each processor comprising memory for storing sequences of executable code and data, and means for accessing said memory and executing any accessed code; the memory being mapped as a two-level model including a finite number p greater than 0 of registers and a comparably infinite internal memory, said registers having access times faster than that of internal memory,
comprising the processor-implemented steps of:
(a) ascertaining data dependency graph attributes of each basic block;
(b) generating a local register allocation and assignment for q of the p registers in the range 0<q<p with reference to all computations within each basic block by performing a "two-color pebbling game" heuristic over the ascertained data dependency graph utilizing the two-level memory model; and
(c) performing live variable analysis upon a flow graph-like representation of the basic blocks and responsively generating a global register allocation and assignment among (p-q) remaining registers assuming that loops expressed in the flow graph among the basic blocks are the most significant optimization entity.
2. A method according to claim 1, wherein the data dependency graph for each basic block is of the directed acyclic graph type.
3. A method according to claim 1, wherein the step of generating a local register allocation and assignment includes the steps of:
(b1) selecting the set of nodes of the graph which have the largest number of successors (dominators) in a leaf-to-root node direction;
(b2) ascertaining a cover cost of every node that is an immediate successor of the set chosen above, and assigning a register to that immediate successor in the set for which the cover cost is minimal; and
(b3) in the absence of any available allocatable registers, writing out an intermediate or final result signified by the computation at that node to internal memory and then subsequently loading said result back to an available register as required.
4. A method according to claim 1, wherein the step of generating a global register allocation and schedule includes:
(c1) generating a list for each variable and the frequency with which the variable is loaded or stored in the local allocations for these basic blocks weighted by the nesting level of that variable; and
(c2) selecting the variable having the highest frequency to reside in a global register, the steps of listing and selection being repeated until either no more of the (p-q) global registers are available, or the list is empty.
5. A method according to claim 1, wherein the step of performing live variable analysis and responsively allocating and assigning (p-q) registers globally includes the steps of ascertaining the "live ranges" for all variables not local to a basic block; and allocating the variable with the largest live range to a global register, and in the event of two or more variables having the same live range, assigning one of the (p-q) registers to that variable having the largest number of uses or nesting level.
Description
TECHNICAL FIELD

This invention relates to a method for allocating and optimizing register assignments during compiling of source into machine-executable code in either a scalar or vector processor.

BACKGROUND

Among the standard works on compiler construction, Aho et al, "Principles of Compiler Design", Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., copyright 1977, and Waite et al, "Compiler Construction", Springer-Verlag, copyright 1984, point out that the conversion of a computer source language such as PASCAL or FORTRAN into code executable by a target machine is done through a series of transformations. First, the source symbol string is lexically analyzed to ascertain the atomic units or words for translation, and then syntactically analyzed for ascertaining the grammatical relations among the words. The output is expressed in the form of a "parse tree". The parse tree is transformed into an intermediate language representation of the source code. Most compilers do not generate a parse tree explicitly, but form the intermediate code as the syntactic analysis takes place. Optimization is then applied to the intermediate code after which the target machine-executable or object code is generated.

Among the tasks that a compiler must perform are the allocation and assignment of computing resources so that the computation specified by a stream of source code instructions can be efficiently completed. Among the "resources" available include computational facilities such as an ALU, input/output, memory including registers, operating system elements, etc. The objectives of the optimization portion of the compiler are to (a) shrink the size of the code, (b) increase the speed of execution where possible, and (c) minimize costs through efficient resource allocation. A schedule of resource use or consumption pattern is then embedded in the code being compiled.

It is well known that an instruction stream can be mapped onto graphical structures and advantage taken of graph-theoretic properties. Code sequences may be analyzed by way of the graphical properties of basic blocks with respect to local optimization, and flow graphs of blocks with respect to global optimization.

A basic block is a sequence of consecutive statements. This sequence may be entered only at the beginning and when entered the statements are executed in sequence without halt or possibility of branch, except at the end thereof.

A flow graph describes the flow of control among basic blocks. The flow graph would, for example, show the looping, branching, and nesting behavior among basic blocks necessary for iterative or recursive computation.

A directed acyclic graph (DAG) of the data dependencies is a data structure for analyzing basic blocks. For instance, a=S+c is rendered by b+c as starting nodes, each connected to common node c through respective edges. It is not a flow graph, although each node or (basic block) of a flow graph could be represented by a DAG.

"Live variable analysis" refers to a set of techniques for ascertaining whether a name has a value which may be subsequently used in a computation. A name is considered "live" coming into a block if the name is either used before redefinition within a basic block, or is "live" coming out of the block and is not "redefined" within the block. Thus, after a value is computed in a register, and is presumably used within a basic block, it is not necessary to store that value if it is "dead" at the end of the block. Also, if all registers are full and another register is needed, assignment could be made to a register presently containing a "dead" value.

Conceptually, the first compiler transformation consists of mapping strings of source code onto a flow graph, each of whose nodes are basic blocks and whose control and data path relationships are defined by the directed edges of the flow graph. Optimization in the allocation and assignment of resources can be considered first at the local or basic block level, and then at the global or flow graph level.

In local optimization, each basic block is treated as a separate unit and optimized without regard to its content. A data dependence graph is built for the basic block, transformed, and used to generate the final machine code. It is then discarded and the next basic block considered. A "data dependence graph" is a graph-theoretic attribute representation within a basic block. Since a basic block cannot contain cycles, all the data dependence graphs' basic blocks can be represented by DAGs. Parenthetically, a DAG is not necessarily a tree. Illustratively, if a basic block consisted of two computational statements x=u+v and y=u+w, the DAG would not be a tree although it is acyclic. Lastly, global optimization performs global rearrangement of the flow graph and provides contextual information at the basic block boundaries.

A computer includes memory, the fastest form of which is the most expensive. A finite number of physical registers store operands for immediate use for computation and control. Computer instructions operating register to register are the fastest executing. If a register is unavailable, an intermediate result must either be loaded to main memory where the bulk of programs and data are located, or loaded from said main memory into a register when a register becomes available. Loads and stores to registers from memory take a substantially longer time. Thus, when evaluating either a flow graph or a basic block, one objective is to keep as many computational names or variables in the registers or to have a register available as needed.

Register allocation involves identifying the names in the software stream which should reside in registers (i.e. the number of registers needed); while assignment is the step of assigning registers to nodes following an underlying scheme, rule, or model. Among the allocation strategies used in the prior art was to have the assignment fixed; that is, where specific types of quantities in an object program were assigned to certain registers. For instance, subroutine links could be assigned to a first register group, base addresses to a second register group, arithmetic computations to a third register group, runtime stackpointers to a fixed register, etc. The disadvantage of such fixed mapping is that register usage does not dynamically follow execution needs. This means that some registers are not used at all, are overused, or are underused.

Global register allocation relates to the observation that most programs spend most of their time in inner loops. Thus, one approach to assignment is to keep a frequently used name in a fixed register throughout a loop. Therefore, one strategy might be to assign some fixed number of registers to hold the most active names in each innerloop. The selected names may differ in different loops. Other nondedicated registers may be used to hold values local to one block. This allocation and assignment has the drawback that no given number of registers is the universally right number to make available for global register allocation.

Chaitin et al, "Register Allocation Via Coloring", Computer Languages, Vol. 6, copyright 1981, pp. 47-57, Pergamon Press Limited, and Chaitin, "Register Allocation and Spilling Via Graph Coloring", Proceedings SIGPLAN 82, Symposium on Compiler Construction, SIGPLAN Notices, copyright 1982, pp. 98-105, describe a method of global register allocation across entire procedures. In Chaitin, all registers but one are considered to be part of a uniform pool, and all computations compete on the same basis for these registers. Indeed, no register subsets are reserved.

Chaitin points out that it is intended to keep as many computations as possible in the registers, rather than in storage, since load and store instructions are more expensive than register-to-register instructions. Chaitin notes that it is the responsibility of code generation and optimization to take advantage of the unlimited number of registers, i.e. considered as a pool, allowed in the intermediate language in order to minimize the number of loads and stores in the program.

The critical observation in Chaitin is that register allocation can be analyzed as a graph-coloring problem. The coloring of a graph is an assignment of a color to each of its nodes in such a manner that if two nodes are adjacent (connected by an edge of the graph), they have different colors. The "chromatic number" of the graph is the minimal number of colors in any of its colorings. In Chaitin, register allocation utilizes the construct termed a "register interference graph". Two computations or names which reside in machine registers are said to "interfere" with each other if they are "live" simultaneously at any point in the program.

Chaitin's graph-coloring method includes the steps of (a) building an interference graph from the names with reference to a specific text ordering of code; (b) ascertaining the chromatic number for the graph, and coloring (assigning registers to nodes) if the chromatic number does not exceed the number of available registers, otherwise reducing the graph by retiring a node (excising the node and its connecting edges) having the highest in/out degree; (c) repeating step (b) until the values converge, and (d) accounting for and managing the "spills" by embedding in the compiled code stream appropriate writes to and loads from memory.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is an object of this invention to allocate and assign registers optimally during the compilation of source into executable code in either scalar or vector processors, and thereby minimize the number of spills (the number of references to and from memory). It is a related object to allocate and assign registers so that the amount of spill code is invariant with textual ordering within basic blocks.

The objects are satisfied by a method for allocating registers and optimizing said allocation local to regions of code without branches termed "basic blocks" during the optimization phase of the compiling of source into executable code in either a scalar or vector processor. Each basic block has statements defining computations. Also, each processor comprises memory for storing sequences of executable code and data, and means for accessing said memory and executing any accessed code. In the processor, the memory is mapped as a two-level model including a finite number p of registers and a comparably infinite internal memory. Relatedly, the registers have access times faster than that of internal memory.

The inventive method comprises the processor-implemented steps of (a) ascertaining the data dependency graph attributes of a basic block, and (b) generating an allocation and assignment for q of the p registers with reference to all computations within the basic block by performing a "two-color pebbling game" heuristic over the ascertained data dependency graph utilizing the two-level memory model.

The foregoing objects are further satisfied by a method for both local and global register optimization comprising the step, in addition to (a) and (b) above, of (c) performing live variable analysis, and responsively generating a global register allocation and assignment assuming that loops are the most significant optimization entity.

Unlike Chaitin's "register interference graph", a data dependency graph is invariant to textual ordering. The method of this invention partitions the allocation process into two steps. The first step is to obtain a good local allocation, and the second step is to use the local allocation to obtain the global one. The pebbling game heuristic played upon the data dependency graph ensures that spills within the basic blocks are minimized. The heuristic involves the exercise of a red-blue pebble game on the graphs corresponding to the basic blocks. Accesses to memory are modeled by way of placement of blue pebbles on the graph, while accesses to registers are modeled by way of placement of red pebbles on the graph. This model precisely controls spills. The same dependency graph always yields the same allocation.

Significantly, while performing the local allocation, not all available registers are used. Indeed, some registers are set aside for carrying global information. Relatedly, the second major step is that of performing global allocation using these registers to further reduce accesses to memory. The variables that are chosen for these global registers are selected so as to maximally reduce the number of load or store operations in the entire program.

For purposes of this invention, a pebbling game is a one-person game played on a DAG. The player is given two types of pebbles: red and blue. The number of blue pebbles is infinite, while the number of red pebbles is restricted to some number, say p. Initially, the DAG has all sources pebbled blue. The player is allowed to make any one of the following moves:

(1) Put a red pebble next to a blue pebble;

(2) Put a blue pebble next to a red pebble;

(3) Put a red pebble on a node, if and only if all of the predecessor nodes are pebbled red;

(4) Slide a red pebble to a node from one of its predecessor nodes, if and only if the predecessor nodes were pebbled red before the slide; or

(5) Remove a red pebble at any time.

In this regard, blue pebbles are memory locations while red pebbles are registers. In this context, rule (1) is a load from memory, rule (2) is a write to memory, rule (3) is a computation of a value into a new register, and rule (4) is the computation of a value into a register which previously held an operand used in the computation. The object of the game in the register allocation context is to minimize the number of spills, where a spill involves the use of rules (1) or (2).

Pebble games have been described in the prior art, as in Pippenger, "Pebbling", 5th IBM Symposium on the Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, May 26-28 1980, Hakone, Japan. Pippenger pointed out that pebbling has found a range of applications including compilers, and in particular, code generation and optimization. The game referenced by Pippenger is a one-color game, sometimes called the "black pebble game".

Admittedly, the "black pebble game" has been used for the study of space-time tradeoffs. A "space-time tradeoff" involves the consequences of varying the factors formed by the product of the number of available registers and the time it takes to perform the computation. The product is an amount proportional to the number of nodes in a data dependence graph. If only one color represents a register, then for any given computation, Pippenger asks "what is the minimum number of registers required in order to perform said computation?" However, Pippenger's one-color pebble game neither teaches nor suggests the inventive method. Significantly, the invention treats an allocation and assignment of registers via two-color pebbling upon a DAG for local optimization and loop-based global optimization which together minimize the spills as compared to the prevailing graph-coloring method.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING

FIG. 1 depicts a computational sequence of three basic blocks of program code.

FIG. 2 is a data dependency graph rendition of the blocks of FIG. 1 used in a first example illustrating local register allocation using a pebbling heuristic, according to the invention.

FIG. 3 shows a register interference graph of the sequence of FIG. 1, according to the prior art.

FIG. 4 represents the interference graph of FIG. 3 reduced by several nodes to permit "coloring", according to the prior art.

FIG. 5 represents a computational sequence.

FIG. 6 shows data dependency graph, and a register activity sequence used in a second example of local register allocation using the pebbling heuristic, according to the invention.

FIG. 7 sets out a flow graph of basic blocks involved in the description of the global allocation step, according to the invention.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT AND INDUSTRIAL APPLICABILITY

The description will first treat the allocation and assignment of registers to achieve local optimization by way of a description of a pebble game heuristic algorithm, to be then followed by a discussion of global allocation.

Local Optimization

Local optimization utilizes a "pebble game" heuristic. For purposes of this invention, a "heuristic" is an intuitively-based, machine-implementable procedure or algorithm for achieving a prospectively near optimal result.

A First Example

Referring now to FIGS. 1-5 and 6, there are shown computational sequences partitioned into basic blocks 1-3 and represented by counterpart data dependency graphs of the DAG type. The heuristic to a first approximation proceeds as follows:

1. Examine a DAG and identify p dominating nodes, i.e. the nodes having the largest number of successors, where p is the number of red pebbles. Associate with each such set of p nodes a cost which is the number of nodes in the set that are not red. Now choose, amongst these sets, the set which has the smallest value of cost/size of dominator. This defines a "promising" area for computation.

2. Next, find a "good" computation by computing the cover cost of each node that is an immediate successor of the set chosen above. The cover cost has two parameters. These include (a) the number of predecessor nodes not pebbled red, and (b) the minimum slide cost over the immediate ancestors of the node. Relatedly, the slide cost references the predecessors in (a) having the smallest out degree. By "out degree", it is meant successor nodes which have not as yet been computed. Parenthetically, the number of noncomputed successors changes once a computation has been performed. Thus, for example, in FIG. 2 referencing basic block 14, the node t1 has a cover cost of (2,1). Here, the number of predecessor nodes is two (nodes x and y), while the slide cost (out degree to noncomputed successor nodes) initially for x is 1 and for y is 3. Selection is made for the one that has the smaller slide cost. Once the cover cost has been computed, the computation that will be performed in the next step of the algorithm is chosen to be the one with the smallest cover cost.

3. Once having decided upon a "good" computation, red pebbling subordinate nodes use the rule for sliding pebbles. If no red pebbles can be used to perform a slide, a pebble not currently on the DAG is used if one exists.

4. If registers are not available, then an intermediate result must be written out to memory and then loaded back when needed.

Referring now to FIG. 2, node t1 is dependent upon the sources x and y, while node q is dependent upon nodes y and z. The result v in turn depends upon t1 and v. Assuming that three registers r0, r1, and r2 are available, a dominator consisting of three nodes is chosen. The only possible dominator is the set {x,y,z}. Hence, this is dubbed the "promising" set.

Nodes t1 and q are successors of the dominating set chosen. For each node, the cover cost is computed. The cover cost of t1 is (2,1) because two predecessors of t1 are unpebbled and the minimum slide cost is 1 since x has only one uncomputed successor. This is similarly the case for q. Since the cover cost is the same for both t1 and q, one node is chosen arbitrarily, say t1. In order to compute t1, red pebbles must first be placed on x and y. Next, slide x to t1 because the slide cost of x is 1. Now, node v can be computed by sliding the red pebble on t1 to v. Then node q can be computed, after loading z, by sliding the pebble on y to q.

The foregoing analysis points out that, given a sufficient number of registers, scheduling can be rendered reasonably smoothly.

Referring now to FIGS. 3 and 4, there is shown a register interference graph 7 according to the prior art Chaitin references of the computation sequence depicted in FIG. 1. The FIG. 3 graph 7 is technically three-colorable. However, if only two registers were available (r0, r1), then it would not be possible to color the graph per se. It would be necessary to remove or retire nodes in highest-degree order. In this regard, FIG. 4 is an example of the prior art interference graph 8 with nodes x and y removed. However, in order to be two-colorable, node z would also have to be removed. The retirement of three nodes indicates a substantial amount of spill code. In contrast, if one were to render only two registers available and assign them according to the data dependence graph in FIG. 2, only three loads and one store would be required by comparison.

A More Refined Example

Referring now to FIGS. 5 and 6, again suppose there are three registers and three red pebbles available. According to the algorithm, nodes u, v, and w would be picked as dominating nodes. The cover cost (x)=(2,1), while the cover cost (y)=(2,2). Hence, the algorithm chooses to evaluate node x. Since the cover cost=(c1, c2), then for c1=2, the algorithm computes spill nodes (x) for the current frontier. The term frontier derives from the set of nodes with the property that for every node v in the set, the node has a pebble on it, and at least one successor of v has not been computed. This is termed the frontier.

Since no red pebbles on the DAG have been placed, it is empty. Hence, the method can place free red pebbles on nodes u and v. Also, since c2=1, the register at node u is slid to node x and one computation is completed. Once again, another dominator is chosen. This time node p is targeted for computation because the cover cost (p)=(0,1). As before, c2=1. This means that the register on node x is slid to node p.

It is clear now that the method will have to compute node y, and then node z, because no other choices are available. See FIG. 5. Further note that only three loads have been performed, and also that both p and z are available in registers. This means that if either is used later, there need not be any load from memory.

Significantly, no matter how the code in the sequences is permuted, the data dependency graphs are invariant. Hence, the results produced by the method are independent of textual order.

Also note that if the prior art of coloring had been applied to the code as shown in FIG. 6, the number of loads would be four, while the number of loads for the inventive method is only three, the smallest number possible.

Global Optimization

In this invention, global optimization first involves performing local allocations for each basic block in the order that they appear in a flow graph using some fraction of the total number of available registers. Then, assuming that loops are the most critical entities, use the remaining registers for carrying global information.

Referring now to FIG. 7, there is shown a flow graph 10 initialized at node start 12 and terminating at node finish 14.

Assuming that local allocations have been made, the global step examines the set of variables that are loaded and stored in each local allocation. For these variables, a count is made of the number of times the variable is loaded or stored. This count is biased by the so-called nesting level of the variable, which refers to the number of loops in the flow graph that surround the variable. From this list, the variable with the highest value is selected to reside in a global register. The process is repeated until no more global registers are available, or the list is empty.

This scheme or step of global allocation has some variants. For instance, the variables that are put into global registers are those that represent the largest live ranges in the flow graph corresponding to the local allocations. That is, the local allocations are substituted for the corresponding basic blocks in the input program. Then, live ranges are computed for all the variables that are not local to a basic block. Live ranges are used to determine which variable is allocated a global register with the number of uses and nesting level-breaking ties.

In the event that variables wind up in different registers at the bottom of the loop, whereas they are assumed to be at the top of the loop, the loop can be unrolled until no transfers are required or the number of transfers is below some predetermined threshold.

______________________________________An Algorithmic Recitation of the Pebble Game Heuristic______________________________________Algorithm Local --Alloc(DAG,num --registers)current --frontier := sources(D): /* set frontier to sourcesof DAG*/current --configuration := (empty, current --frontier);while (number of uncomputed nodes not zero) doFind a set S, of p nodes, in the current frontier, suchthat move --cost(S)/(number of nodes that S dominates) isminimized./* find a good computation to do */compute the cover cost of every node in FS(S);Let u be the node in FS(S) with the smallest covercost, where cover --cost(u) = (c1,c2);/* find the possible spill nodes for the computation */if c1 > 0 then for each node v in spill --nodes(u,S), ifv is not pebbled blue then place a blue pebble on v.Remove the red pebble from v.while not all predecessors of u are pebbled red doput a free red pebble on a predecessor of u notpebbled red./* pebble the computation */if c2 = 1 then slide the node with slide -- cost = 1 tou elseif any free red pebbles,then put free pebble on uelse beginlet v be the predecessor of u with the smallestslide cost.if slide --cost(v) > 0, put a blue pebble on v;slide v to u;end;od;______________________________________
Extensions of the Invention

The method of this invention can be used in a scalar processor of the IBM System/370 type, or used in vector machines as exemplified by the IBM 3090. In vector processors, it is desired to run a computation at top speed. This means that a computation should access memory as seldom as possible because memory access is very slow compared with the access to vector registers. The pebble game heuristic, as previously described, can be used to determine the number of vector registers as follows. First, select a starting number of vector registers and then run the heuristic on the data dependency graph DAG corresponding to the vector computation that is to be performed. Next, compute the total number of loads/stores performed for this fixed number of registers. After this, compare this number with a lower bound for the number of accesses that are required; that is, the number of sources plus the number of sinks. If too many accesses are performed, double the number of registers and reapply the algorithm. If the lower bound is achieved, then halve the number of registers and repeat the algorithm until an optimal number of registers is identified. This is equivalent to performing a binary search on the number of vector registers and using the pebble game heuristic to determine the search parameter.

Another extension of the invention is its use in machines where computations can be overlapped with loads and stores to memory. Since the heuristic attempts to compute as much as possible based on data currently in registers, it should provide a good overlap between computations and memory accesses.

Processing Environment

This invention can be conveniently executed when embedded in the optimizer portion of a high-level language compiler, such as that found in PL/I, FORTRAN, COBOL, etc., and executed on a system such as an IBM System/370 as described in Amdahl et al, U.S. Pat. No. 3,400,371, "Data Processing System", issued Sept. 3, 1968, and in IBM System/370 Principles of Operation, IBM Publication GA22-7000-6.

Patent Citations
Cited PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitle
US3400371 *Apr 6, 1964Sep 3, 1968IbmData processing system
US3921153 *Aug 2, 1973Nov 18, 1975IbmSystem and method for evaluating paging behavior
US4378590 *Sep 3, 1980Mar 29, 1983Burroughs CorporationRegister allocation apparatus
US4435753 *Oct 31, 1980Mar 6, 1984International Business Machines CorporationRegister allocation system using recursive queuing during source code compilation
US4493020 *Jul 29, 1980Jan 8, 1985Burroughs CorporationMicroprogrammed digital data processor employing microinstruction tasking and dynamic register allocation
US4567574 *Mar 14, 1983Jan 28, 1986International Business Machines CorporationOptimizing cobol object code instruction path length with respect to perform statements
US4571678 *Nov 5, 1982Feb 18, 1986International Business Machines CorporationRegister allocation and spilling via graph coloring
US4656582 *Feb 4, 1985Apr 7, 1987International Business Machines CorporationGenerating storage reference instructions in an optimizing compiler
US4656583 *Aug 13, 1984Apr 7, 1987International Business Machines CorporationMethod for improving global common subexpression elimination and code motion in an optimizing compiler
US4667290 *Sep 10, 1984May 19, 1987501 Philon, Inc.Compilers using a universal intermediate language
US4722071 *Apr 19, 1985Jan 26, 1988Pertron Controls, CorporationCompiler for evaluating Boolean expressions
US4727487 *Jul 31, 1985Feb 23, 1988Hitachi, Ltd.Resource allocation method in a computer system
Non-Patent Citations
Reference
1Aho et al., "Principles of Compiler Design", Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., copyright 1977.
2 *Aho et al., Principles of Compiler Design , Addison Wesley Publishing Co., copyright 1977.
3Chaitin et al., "Register Allocation Via Coloring", Computer Languages, vol. 6, Pergamon Press Limited, copyright 1981, pp. 47-57.
4 *Chaitin et al., Register Allocation Via Coloring , Computer Languages, vol. 6, Pergamon Press Limited, copyright 1981, pp. 47 57.
5Chaitin, "Register Allocation and Spilling Via Graph Coloring", Proceedings SIGPLAN 82, Symposium on Compiler Construction, SIGPLAN Notices, copyright 1982, pp. 98-105.
6 *Chaitin, Register Allocation and Spilling Via Graph Coloring , Proceedings SIGPLAN 82, Symposium on Compiler Construction, SIGPLAN Notices, copyright 1982, pp. 98 105.
7 *IBM System/370 Principles of Operation, IBM Publication GA22 7000 6.
8IBM System/370 Principles of Operation, IBM Publication GA22-7000-6.
9Pippenger, "Pebbling", 5th IBM Symposium on the Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, May 26-28, 1980, Hakone, Japan.
10 *Pippenger, Pebbling , 5th IBM Symposium on the Mathematical Foundations of Computer Science, May 26 28, 1980, Hakone, Japan.
11Ruzicka, "Two Variants of the Black-and-White Pebble Game", Computer and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, 1985, No. 3, pp. 211-221.
12 *Ruzicka, Two Variants of the Black and White Pebble Game , Computer and Artificial Intelligence, vol. 4, 1985, No. 3, pp. 211 221.
13Waite et al., "Compiler Construction", Springer-Verlag, copyright 1984.
14 *Waite et al., Compiler Construction , Springer Verlag, copyright 1984.
Referenced by
Citing PatentFiling datePublication dateApplicantTitle
US5070453 *Apr 10, 1989Dec 3, 1991At&T Bell LaboratoriesSystem and method for scheduling data transfers among a plurality of data processing units to avoid conflicting data requests
US5107418 *Aug 23, 1990Apr 21, 1992Supercomputer Systems Limited PartnershipMethod for representing scalar data dependences for an optimizing compiler
US5117497 *Jul 29, 1988May 26, 1992Hitachi, Ltd.System for synthesizing plurality of source programs by combining syntax elements and conditions of the programs
US5121498 *May 11, 1988Jun 9, 1992Massachusetts Institute Of TechnologyTranslator for translating source code for selective unrolling of loops in the source code
US5129086 *Nov 29, 1988Jul 7, 1992International Business Machines CorporationSystem and method for intercommunicating between applications and a database manager
US5193190 *Jun 26, 1989Mar 9, 1993International Business Machines CorporationPartitioning optimizations in an optimizing compiler
US5202975 *Jun 10, 1992Apr 13, 1993Supercomputer Systems Limited PartnershipMethod for optimizing instruction scheduling for a processor having multiple functional resources
US5212794 *Jun 1, 1990May 18, 1993Hewlett-Packard CompanyMethod for optimizing computer code to provide more efficient execution on computers having cache memories
US5261062 *Oct 31, 1990Nov 9, 1993Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd.Register allocation system adaptive for pipelining
US5274820 *Aug 19, 1992Dec 28, 1993International Business Machines CorporationMethod and system for eliminating operation codes from intermediate prolog instructions
US5283901 *Apr 7, 1992Feb 1, 1994Nec CorporationMicrocomputer with high speed access memory and language processing program execution system
US5303357 *Apr 3, 1992Apr 12, 1994Kabushiki Kaisha ToshibaIn an electronic computer
US5303376 *Feb 26, 1990Apr 12, 1994Nec CorporationProgram partial linking system for linking a specific program prepared in advance when an assigned program is not in a program library
US5339428 *Sep 4, 1991Aug 16, 1994Digital Equipment CorporationCompiler allocating a register to a data item used between a use and store of another data item previously allocated to the register
US5367651 *Nov 30, 1992Nov 22, 1994Intel CorporationIntegrated register allocation, instruction scheduling, instruction reduction and loop unrolling
US5367696 *Oct 1, 1991Nov 22, 1994Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd.Register allocation technique in a program translating apparatus
US5386562 *May 13, 1992Jan 31, 1995Mips Computer Systems, Inc.Circular scheduling method and apparatus for executing computer programs by moving independent instructions out of a loop
US5418958 *Jul 15, 1992May 23, 1995Sun Microsystems, Inc.Register allocation by decomposing, re-connecting and coloring hierarchical program regions
US5428793 *Nov 13, 1989Jun 27, 1995Hewlett-Packard CompanyMethod and apparatus for compiling computer programs with interproceduural register allocation
US5450588 *Jul 12, 1993Sep 12, 1995International Business Machines CorporationMethod in a data processing system
US5469572 *Dec 1, 1992Nov 21, 1995Taylor; James M.Post compile optimizer for linkable object code
US5487131 *Dec 9, 1991Jan 23, 1996Digital Equipment CorporationComputer implemented method
US5491823 *Jan 25, 1994Feb 13, 1996Silicon Graphics, Inc.Loop scheduler
US5511218 *Mar 30, 1994Apr 23, 1996Hughes Aircraft CompanyConnectionist architecture for weapons assignment
US5530866 *Oct 13, 1994Jun 25, 1996Tera Computer CompanyRegister allocation methods having upward pass for determining and propagating variable usage information and downward pass for binding; both passes utilizing interference graphs via coloring
US5555417 *Jan 23, 1995Sep 10, 1996Hewlett-Packard CompanyMethod and apparatus for compiling computer programs with interprocedural register allocation
US5590356 *Aug 23, 1994Dec 31, 1996Massachusetts Institute Of TechnologyFor processing data from a host computer
US5642512 *Jul 27, 1995Jun 24, 1997Matsushita Electric Co.Compiler with improved live range interference investigation
US5652834 *Jun 10, 1994Jul 29, 1997Telefonaktiebolaget Lm EricssonMethod of avoiding non-desired interference between services by creating a truncated binomial tree which represent active or passive action elements
US5659754 *Mar 31, 1995Aug 19, 1997Sun Microsystems, Inc.Method and apparatus for an improved optimizing compiler
US5752068 *Dec 30, 1996May 12, 1998Massachusetts Institute Of TechnologyMesh parallel computer architecture apparatus and associated methods
US5761514 *Aug 31, 1995Jun 2, 1998International Business Machines CorporationRegister allocation method and apparatus for truncating runaway lifetimes of program variables in a computer system
US5790862 *Mar 14, 1996Aug 4, 1998Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.Resource assigning apparatus which assigns the variable in a program to resources
US5790863 *Nov 8, 1996Aug 4, 1998Microsoft CorporationMethod and system for generating and displaying a computer program
US5794029 *Oct 18, 1996Aug 11, 1998Elbrus International Ltd.Architectural support for execution control of prologue and eplogue periods of loops in a VLIW processor
US5802375 *Nov 23, 1994Sep 1, 1998Cray Research, Inc.Outer loop vectorization
US5890000 *Dec 4, 1996Mar 30, 1999International Business Machines CorporationCooperation of global and local register allocators for better handling of procedures
US5901316 *Jul 1, 1996May 4, 1999Sun Microsystems, Inc.Float register spill cache method, system, and computer program product
US5901317 *Mar 25, 1996May 4, 1999Sun Microsystems, Inc.Method and system for register allocation using multiple interference graphs
US5911072 *Jun 27, 1997Jun 8, 1999Microsoft CorporationMethod in a computer system for reducing an intentional program tree
US5937195 *Nov 27, 1996Aug 10, 1999Hewlett-Packard CoGlobal control flow treatment of predicated code
US5946491 *Jun 6, 1996Aug 31, 1999International Business Machines CorporationRegister allocation method and apparatus for gernerating spill code as a function of register pressure compared to dual thresholds
US5946494 *Jul 31, 1997Aug 31, 1999Lg Semicon Co., Ltd.Method for minimizing the number of input terminals used in an operator
US5966539 *Nov 3, 1997Oct 12, 1999Digital Equipment CorporationLink time optimization with translation to intermediate program and following optimization techniques including program analysis code motion live variable set generation order analysis, dead code elimination and load invariant analysis
US5987259 *Jun 30, 1997Nov 16, 1999Sun Microsystems, Inc.Functional unit switching for the allocation of registers
US5991540 *Apr 1, 1997Nov 23, 1999Intel CorporationMethod for identifying partial redundancies in existing processor architectures
US6009272 *Jun 30, 1997Dec 28, 1999Sun Microsystems, Inc.Register allocation via selective spilling
US6016398 *Apr 1, 1997Jan 18, 2000Intel CorporationMethod for using static single assignment to color out artificial register dependencies
US6029005 *Apr 1, 1997Feb 22, 2000Intel CorporationMethod for identifying partial redundancies in a new processor architecture
US6031994 *Apr 1, 1997Feb 29, 2000Intel CorporationMethod for determining the set of variables that may be ambiguously defined at a point in a computer program
US6049864 *Aug 20, 1996Apr 11, 2000Intel CorporationMethod for scheduling a flag generating instruction and a subsequent instruction by executing the flag generating instruction in a microprocessor
US6058265 *Oct 21, 1997May 2, 2000Hewlett Packard CompanyEnabling troubleshooting of subroutines with greatest execution time/input data set size relationship
US6070007 *Jun 27, 1997May 30, 2000Microsoft CorporationMethod and system for reducing an intentional program tree represented by high-level computational constructs
US6078746 *Jun 27, 1997Jun 20, 2000Microsoft CorporationMethod and system for reducing an intentional program tree represented by high-level computational constructs
US6090156 *May 15, 1998Jul 18, 2000International Business Machines CorporationSystem for local context spilling for graph coloring register allocators
US6097888 *Apr 28, 1995Aug 1, 2000Microsoft CorporationMethod and system for reducing an intentional program tree represented by high-level computational constructs
US6131188 *Nov 17, 1999Oct 10, 2000Sun Microsystems, Inc.System and method for reducing the occurrence of window use overflow
US6135650 *Dec 22, 1995Oct 24, 2000Sun Microsystems, Inc.Method and system for wrapper routine optimization
US6139200 *Jun 30, 1997Oct 31, 2000Sun Microsystems, Inc.Register resource allocation feedback
US6151704 *Apr 1, 1997Nov 21, 2000Intel CorporationMethod for optimizing a loop in a computer program by speculatively removing loads from within the loop
US6189143Jun 27, 1997Feb 13, 2001Microsoft CorporationMethod and system for reducing an intentional program tree represented by high-level computational constructs
US6292938 *Dec 2, 1998Sep 18, 2001International Business Machines CorporationRetargeting optimized code by matching tree patterns in directed acyclic graphs
US6314562Sep 12, 1997Nov 6, 2001Microsoft CorporationMethod and system for anticipatory optimization of computer programs
US6651246May 18, 2000Nov 18, 2003International Business Machines CorporationLoop allocation for optimizing compilers
US6725218Apr 28, 2000Apr 20, 2004Cisco Technology, Inc.Computerized database system and method
US6779106Sep 28, 2000Aug 17, 2004International Business Machines CorporationApparatus and method for an enhanced integer divide in an IA64 architecture
US6799262Sep 28, 2000Sep 28, 2004International Business Machines CorporationApparatus and method for creating instruction groups for explicity parallel architectures
US6883165Sep 28, 2000Apr 19, 2005International Business Machines CorporationApparatus and method for avoiding deadlocks in a multithreaded environment
US6886094Sep 28, 2000Apr 26, 2005International Business Machines CorporationApparatus and method for detecting and handling exceptions
US6912647Sep 28, 2000Jun 28, 2005International Business Machines CorportionApparatus and method for creating instruction bundles in an explicitly parallel architecture
US6954927Oct 4, 2001Oct 11, 2005Elbrus InternationalHardware supported software pipelined loop prologue optimization
US6966054Dec 5, 2000Nov 15, 2005Microsoft CorporationMethod and system for generating a computer program
US7013460 *May 15, 2001Mar 14, 2006Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.Specifying an invariant property (range of addresses) in the annotation in source code of the computer program
US7024255Aug 19, 2004Apr 4, 2006Roy-G-Biv CorporationEvent driven motion systems
US7024666 *Jan 28, 2003Apr 4, 2006Roy-G-Biv CorporationMotion control systems and methods
US7031798Feb 11, 2002Apr 18, 2006Roy-G-Biv CorporationEvent management systems and methods for the distribution of motion control commands
US7069548 *Jun 28, 2002Jun 27, 2006Intel CorporationInter-procedure global register allocation method
US7111287Jan 10, 2003Sep 19, 2006International Business Machines CorporationGlobal processor resource assignment in an assembler
US7137107Apr 29, 2004Nov 14, 2006Roy-G-Biv CorporationMotion control systems and methods
US7139843Dec 10, 2001Nov 21, 2006Roy-G-Biv CorporationSystem and methods for generating and communicating motion data through a distributed network
US7174546 *Sep 12, 2001Feb 6, 2007International Business Machines CorporationCompiler and register allocation method
US7185329Mar 28, 2003Feb 27, 2007Applied Micro Circuits CorporationUse of different color sequences for variables of different sizes and different semantics
US7207032 *Mar 28, 2003Apr 17, 2007Applied Micro Circuits CorporationExpanding a software program by insertion of statements
US7263694 *Oct 26, 2001Aug 28, 2007International Business Machines CorporationDirected non-cyclic graph walking system for data processing and analysis in software application
US7797692 *May 12, 2006Sep 14, 2010Google Inc.Estimating a dominant resource used by a computer program
US7853645Jan 28, 2005Dec 14, 2010Roy-G-Biv CorporationRemote generation and distribution of command programs for programmable devices
US7904194Mar 26, 2007Mar 8, 2011Roy-G-Biv CorporationEvent management systems and methods for motion control systems
US8027349Sep 11, 2009Sep 27, 2011Roy-G-Biv CorporationDatabase event driven motion systems
US8032605Apr 1, 2003Oct 4, 2011Roy-G-Biv CorporationGeneration and distribution of motion commands over a distributed network
US8073557Mar 18, 2009Dec 6, 2011Roy-G-Biv CorporationMotion control systems
US8102869Jun 29, 2009Jan 24, 2012Roy-G-Biv CorporationData routing systems and methods
US8237726 *Jun 26, 2009Aug 7, 2012Intel CorporationRegister allocation for message sends in graphics processing pipelines
US8271105Jun 14, 2006Sep 18, 2012Roy-G-Biv CorporationMotion control systems
EP1146431A2 *Dec 16, 1993Oct 17, 2001Apple Computer, Inc.Method for tranforming an arbitrary topology collection of nodes into an acyclic directed graph
WO1991010954A1 *Jan 18, 1991Jul 25, 1991Alliant Computer SystemsA risc vectorization system
WO1991020029A1 *Jun 10, 1991Dec 26, 1991Supercomputer Systems LtdMethod for representing scala data dependencies for an optimizing compiler
WO1998006038A1 *Aug 7, 1996Feb 12, 1998Boris Artashesovich BabayanArchitectural support for software pipelining of loops
Classifications
U.S. Classification717/153
International ClassificationG06F9/45
Cooperative ClassificationG06F8/441
European ClassificationG06F8/441
Legal Events
DateCodeEventDescription
Jan 5, 2000FPAYFee payment
Year of fee payment: 12
Mar 27, 1996FPAYFee payment
Year of fee payment: 8
Dec 6, 1991FPAYFee payment
Year of fee payment: 4
Dec 17, 1985ASAssignment
Owner name: INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, ARMON
Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST.;ASSIGNORS:MUNSHI, ASHFAQ A.;SCHIMPF, KARL M.;REEL/FRAME:004512/0883
Effective date: 19851213